MNRAS 000, 1–14 (2018) Preprint 18 April 2018 Compiled using MNRAS LATEX style file v3.0

Correlations between age, kinematics, and chemistry asseen by the RAVE survey

Jennifer Wojno,1,2? Georges Kordopatis,3 Matthias Steinmetz,1 Paul McMillan,4

James Binney,5 Benoit Famaey,6 Giacomo Monari,1 Ivan Minchev,1

Rosemary F. G. Wyse,2 Teresa Antoja,7 Arnaud Siebert,6 Ismael Carrillo,1

Joss Bland-Hawthorn,8 Eva K. Grebel,9 Tomaz Zwitter,10 Olivier Bienayme,6

Brad Gibson,11 Andrea Kunder,12 Ulisse Munari,13 Julio Navarro,14 Quentin Parker,15

Warren Reid,16,17 George Seabroke181Leibniz Institut fur Astrophysik Potsdam, An der Sternwarte 16, 14482 Potsdam, Germany2Department of Physics and Astronomy, Johns Hopkins University, 3400 N. Charles St, Baltimore, MD 21218, USA3Laboratoire Lagrange, Universite Cote d’Azur, Observatoire de la Cote d’Azur, Boulevard de l’Observatoire, CS 34229, 06304, Nice, France4Lund Observatory, Lund University, Department of Astronomy and Theoretical Physics, Box 43, SE-22100 Lund, Sweden5Rudolf Peierls Centre for Theoretical Physics, Keble Road, Oxford OX1 3NP, UK6Observatoire astronomique de Strasbourg, Universite de Strasbourg, CNRS, UMR 7550, 11 rue de l’Universite, F-67000 Strasbourg, France7Dept. FQA, Institut de Ciencies del Cosmos (ICCUB), Universitat de Barcelona (IEEC-UB), Marti Franques 1, 08028 Barcelona, Spain8Sydney Institute for Astronomy, School of Physics A28, University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia9Astronomisches Rechen-Institut, Zentrum fur Astronomie der Universitat Heidelberg, Monchhofstr. 12-14, D-69120 Heidelberg, Germany10Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, University of Ljubljana, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia11E.A. Milne Centre for Astrophysics, University of Hull, Hull HU6 7RX, UK12Saint Martin’s University, 5000 Abbey Way SE, Lacey, WA 98503, USA13INAF National Institute of Astrophysics, Astronomical Observatory of Padova, 36012 Asiago (VI), Italy14Senior CIfAR Fellow, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada V8P 5C215Department of Physics, Chong Yuet Ming Physics Building, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong16Department of Physics and Astronomy, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW 2109, Australia17Western Sydney University, Locked Bag 1797, Penrith South, NSW 2751, Australia18Mullard Space Science Laboratory, University College London, Holmbury St Mary, Dorking, RH5 6NT, UK

Accepted XXX. Received YYY; in original form ZZZ

ABSTRACT

We explore the connections between stellar age, chemistry, and kinematics acrossa Galactocentric distance of 7.5 < R (kpc) < 9.0, using a sample of ∼ 12 000intermediate-mass (FGK) turnoff stars observed with the RAdial Velocity Experiment(RAVE) survey. The kinematics of this sample are determined using radial velocitymeasurements from RAVE, and parallax and proper motion measurements from theTycho-Gaia Astrometric Solution (TGAS). In addition, ages for RAVE stars are de-termined using a Bayesian method, taking TGAS parallaxes as a prior. We divideour sample into young (0 < τ < 3 Gyr) and old (8 < τ < 13 Gyr) populations, andthen consider different metallicity bins for each of these age groups. We find signif-icant differences in kinematic trends of young and old, metal-poor and metal-rich,stellar populations. In particular, we find a strong metallicity dependence in the meanGalactocentric radial velocity as a function of radius (∂VR/∂R) for young stars, withmetal-rich stars having a much steeper gradient than metal-poor stars. For ∂Vφ/∂R,young, metal-rich stars significantly lag the LSR with a slightly positive gradient,while metal-poor stars show a negative gradient above the LSR. We interpret thesefindings as correlations between metallicity and the relative contributions of the non-axisymmetries in the Galactic gravitational potential (the spiral arms and the bar) toperturb stellar orbits.

Key words: Galaxy: kinematics and dynamics – Galaxy: structure – solar neigh-bourhood

? E-mail: jwojno1@jhu.edu (JW)

c© 2018 The Authors

arX

iv:1

804.

0637

9v1

[as

tro-

ph.G

A]

17

Apr

201

8

2 J. Wojno et al.

1 INTRODUCTION

The field of Galactic archaeology stands poised to reveal theformation history of our Galaxy. As low- and intermediate-mass stars are long-lived, they can act as time capsules, al-lowing us a window to the environment in which they wereborn (Freeman & Bland-Hawthorn 2002). Spectroscopic sur-veys, such as RAVE (Steinmetz et al. 2006), SEGUE (Yannyet al. 2009), APOGEE (Majewski et al. 2017), Gaia-ESO(Gilmore et al. 2012), LAMOST (Zhao et al. 2012), andGALAH (De Silva et al. 2015), provide a number of crucialparameters necessary for disentangling the formation historyof the Galactic disc, such as stellar radial velocities, effec-tive temperatures, surface gravities, and individual chem-ical abundances. The precision with which we can exploitthese spectra is being greatly increased by the progressiverelease of astrometric data from ESA’s Gaia satellite, start-ing with Gaia DR1 in September 2016 (Gaia Collaborationet al. 2016; Lindegren et al. 2016) and continuing with GaiaDR2 in April 2018.

It has been known for more than a century that the localvelocity field is not uniform but contains moving groups (e.g.Proctor 1869; Kapteyn 1905)1: predominantly the Hyades,Pleiades, and Hercules groups. The precision of stellar ve-locity measurements in the solar neighbourhood has sinceincreased dramatically, and as a result it is now possible tostudy this velocity space in fine detail (e.g., Dehnen 2000;Famaey et al. 2008; Williams et al. 2013; Antoja et al.2015, 2017; Kushniruk et al. 2017; Carrillo et al. 2018).These structures are indicative of deviations of the MilkyWay (MW) disc from an idealized axisymmetric model as-sociated with our Galaxy’s bar and spiral arms. The waysuch structures vary in velocity space as a function Galac-tocentric radius has been explored in a number of simula-tions (e.g., Minchev et al. 2010; Quillen et al. 2011; Antojaet al. 2011; McMillan 2013; Monari et al. 2014, 2017), witha view to constraining the nature of the underlying non-axisymmetries. To understand better the dynamical pro-cesses that shape the kinematic trends we see in stellar pop-ulations today, we turn to measurements of the local meanstellar velocity field V, which we analyse in Galactocentriccylindrical polar coordinates (R,φ, z).

Siebert et al. (2011) first detected a gradient in VR,namely ∂VR/∂R . −3 km s−1 kpc−1, using the line-of-sightvelocities of RAVE stars. Siebert et al. (2012) fitted this shal-low gradient to a model on the assumption that it is solelydue to long-lived spiral arms. They found that they wereable to reproduce the observational results with a two-armedmodel in the solar neighbourhood (d < 1 kpc), although theyacknowledged that the bar could contribute. Monari et al.(2014) developed a model of the bar’s contribution to thevelocity field near the Sun. They showed that if the Sun islocated close to the bar’s outer Lindblad resonance (OLR),from our position we would measure a trend similar to thatfound in Williams et al. (2013), which measured a slightlysteeper gradient, ∂VR / ∂R = −8 km s−1 kpc−1. Grandet al. (2012) analysing N-body simulations and Monari et al.(2016), modelling spiral arms with linear perturbation the-ory, showed that stars located in arms move in toward the

1 For a history of the discovery of moving groups see Antoja et al.

(2010).

Galactic centre, while stars in interarm regions move out-wards. Monari et al. (2016) estimated the gradient in thedata to be ∂VR/∂R ' −8 km s−1 kpc−1.

The study by Faure et al. (2014) of the combined effectof the bar and spiral arms noted that the pattern just de-scribed in which stars in arms move inwards reverses outsidethe corotation resonance, so there stars in arms move out-wards while stars between arms move inwards. This findingis consistent with the perturbative model of Monari et al.(2016).

Soon after the gradient in VR was found in RAVE stars,Widrow et al. (2012) discovered significant deviations in Vzwith height z above the plane using the Sloan Digital SkySurvey (SDSS). Using the high-resolution simulation of Pur-cell et al. (2011) to study of the effect of the Sagittariusdwarf spheroidal galaxy (dSph) on the MW disc, Gomezet al. (2013) concluded that by plunging through the disc∼ 2 Gyr ago, the Sagittarius dSph could have generated thepattern in Vz detected by Widrow et al. (2012). Carlin et al.(2013) found a similar signature in LAMOST stars that aredistributed through a larger volume. Williams et al. (2013)analysed the Vz field defined by RAVE stars, and detectedwave-like motions perpendicular to the plane that could ei-ther be associated with spiral arms or with a recent accretionevent. However, Carrillo et al. (2018), reanalysing the RAVEdata, laid bare the extent to which the small measured val-ues of Vz are vulnerable to systematic errors in both propermotions and distances. Using TGAS proper motions andimproved distances, they concluded that vertical motionsinside the solar radius could be induced by the Galactic baror spiral arms, while outside they are likely generated by arecent satellite/merging event.

Recently, Antoja et al. (2017) investigated the depen-dence of the velocity field on metallicity. In a novel analysisapplied to data from RAVE and the Geneva-CopenhagenSurvey (GCS, Holmberg et al. 2007) they compared themetallicity distribution at (VR, Vφ) with that at (−VR, Vφ),which would be identical in a well-mixed axisymmetricmodel. The fact that the observed metallicity distributionsdiffered is consistent with previous studies (e.g., Famaeyet al. 2007) that have shown that the chemical abundancesof moving groups differs from that of the local interstellarmedium (ISM). In particular, moving groups are not chem-ically homogeneous, so they cannot be dissolved open clus-ters.

A significant barrier to uncovering the chemodynami-cal history of the solar neighbourhood is the difficulty ofdetermining the ages of individual field stars. The classicalapproach to age determination involves measuring the lu-minosity of turnoff stars of known colour and metallicity.This method requires an accurate distance. We now havetrigonometric parallaxes from the Tycho-Gaia AstrometricSolution (TGAS) (Gaia Collaboration et al. 2016; Lindegrenet al. 2016) for two million stars, so we can determine cred-ible ages for large samples of stars. Here we combine TGASparallaxes and proper motions with RAVE spectroscopy ofturnoff stars to discover how the velocity field depends onage and metallicity.

In Section 2 we review the RAVE survey and its up-dated distance pipeline from which our distances and agesare derived (Section 2.2). In Section 2.3 we record the cri-teria used to select our samples and the steps taken to val-

MNRAS 000, 1–14 (2018)

Kinematic trends in young and old stars 3

idate our ages. With our sample of stars in hand, we thenexplore kinematic trends, in particular ∂VR,φ/∂R for two se-lected age bins (young and old) in Section 3, as a function ofGalactocentric radius. Section 4 presents the distributions oforbital parameters for our age-metallicity bins. In Section 5we present a discussion and interpretation of our results, anddraw our conclusions from this analysis.

2 THE DATA

2.1 The RAVE survey

The RAVE survey collected over half a million medium-resolution (R ≈ 7500) spectra of stars in the Southern hemi-sphere from 2003 until 2013, using the 6dF multi-objectspectrograph on the 1.2-m UK Schmidt Telescope at theSiding Spring Observatory in Australia. Throughout thecourse of the survey, parameters derived from the spectrawere made publicly available via a number of data releases,with the fifth data release (DR5) being the latest (Kunderet al. 2017), providing 520 781 measurements for 457 588 in-dividual stars. Centred on the Ca ii-triplet region (8410 –8795 A) region, this spectral range was chosen specificallyto coincide with the spectral range of Gaia’s Radial VelocitySpectrometer (RVS) (Prusti 2012; Bailer-Jones et al. 2013;Recio-Blanco et al. 2016).

In addition to radial velocities (typical uncertainties∼ 2 km s−1, Kunder et al. 2017; Kordopatis et al. 2013a),RAVE DR5 contains a number of other stellar parametersderived from spectra including effective temperature, sur-face gravity, metallicity ([M/H]), as well as individual abun-dances for six elements (Mg, Al, Si, Ti, Fe, Ni) (Boecheet al. 2011). To provide additional parameters such as appar-ent magnitudes and proper motions, RAVE DR5 was cross-matched with a number of other astrometric and photomet-ric catalogues. In particular, RAVE has a significant overlapwith stars available in TGAS (Lindegren et al. 2016), withRAVE DR5 containing 215 590 unique TGAS stars. Cur-rently, the RAVE survey offers one of the largest samples ofstars with accurate 6D phase-space information in additionto stellar parameters derived from spectra.

2.2 Distances and ages

We use distances and ages returned by an updated versionof the pipeline described in Binney et al. (2014), detailsof which are given in McMillan et al. (2017). The updatedpipeline allows for TGAS parallaxes to be included as priors,alongside stellar parameters such as temperature, surfacegravity, and metallicity from RAVE, apparent magnitudesfrom 2MASS (Skrutskie et al. 2006) and AllWISE (Cutriet al. 2013), and an underlying Galactic model. The defaultGalactic model (prior) used is the same as that used forthe distance determinations available in DR4 and DR5 andincludes priors on stellar metallicities and ages for a givendisc component (McMillan et al. 2017, Section 2.1). Detailsof the other available priors can be found in Section 5 ofMcMillan et al. (2017). From both internal tests and com-parisons with external catalogues, McMillan et al. (2017)report that the combined spectrophotometric distance es-

timates perform better than purely spectroscopic or astro-metric estimates.

In addition to distance estimates, the updated pipelineproduces estimates of stellar mass, metallicity, line of sightextinction, and age as byproducts. For this work, we want toavoid a prior where a relationship between age and metal-licity is imposed. Therefore, we use age estimates derivedutilizing a Galactic model with a flat prior on both age andmetallicity (‘Density’ in McMillan et al. 2017). The agesderived using this prior are roughly consistent with thosederived using an age prior where the star formation rate de-clines over time (McMillan et al. 2017, Equation 20), anda flat prior in metallicity. Derived distances are not signifi-cantly affected by the choice of prior.

2.3 Age validation

To validate the pipeline’s age estimates, we generate a mockcatalogue of RAVE-like stars using the population syn-thesis code Galaxia (Sharma et al. 2011). As Galaxiauses PARSEC (Bressan et al. 2012) isochrones to producestars with perfectly-known ages and atmospheric parame-ters (Teff , log g, [M/H]), 2MASS photometry, and distances,it offers a suitable test sample for assessing internal uncer-tainties on the output of the distance pipeline.

2.3.1 Mock catalogue generation

We generated stars with I-magnitude range 7 < IDENIS <13, to cover the whole magnitude range of RAVE, and re-moved all stars with Galactic latitudes |b| < 5◦. We thenresampled the age distribution of our mock catalogue (pri-marily by reducing the number of young stars) to ensure wehad enough stars for robust statistics across the entire rangeof stellar ages, and as a side-effect, roughly reproduce theage distribution of the extended solar neighbourhood.

2.3.2 Applying uncertainties to our mock catalogue

We then scattered the mock data for Teff , log g, and [M/H]by RAVE-like uncertainties. The standard deviations usedin this process were the quadrature sums of RAVE’s internaland external uncertainties for a star with the given true data(for more detail see Figure 5 of Wojno et al. 2017).

The true apparent magnitudes J , H and Ks in the mockdata were then scattered by a Gaussian error distributionwith dispersion 0.025 mag, which is a typical 2MASS uncer-tainty. Finally, the true parallaxes were scattered by a Gaus-sian error distribution with a dispersion of 0.3 mas, which isa typical TGAS uncertainty (Gaia Collaboration et al. 2016;Lindegren et al. 2016).

2.3.3 Input versus output age comparison

The mock data were then fed into the updated RAVE dis-tance pipeline and the resulting ages compared with the‘true’ ages given by Galaxia. As a preliminary sanity checkthe values of Teff , log g, [M/H] and distance from the pipelinewere compared with the original values from Galaxia andfound to agree within the errors. Figure 1 shows the inputand output ages subdivided by regions within the Teff−log g

MNRAS 000, 1–14 (2018)

4 J. Wojno et al.

0 5 10Age out [Gyr]

02468

101214

Age

in [G

yr]

Giants

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

Frac

tiona

l age

unc

erta

inty

0 5 10Age out [Gyr]

02468

101214

Age

in [G

yr]

Giants

0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.0

Abso

lute

age

unc

erta

inty

[Gyr

]

0 5 10Age out [Gyr]

02468

101214

Age

in [G

yr]

Main sequence

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6Fr

actio

nal a

ge u

ncer

tain

ty

0 5 10Age out [Gyr]

02468

101214

Age

in [G

yr]

Main sequence

0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.0

Abso

lute

age

unc

erta

inty

[Gyr

]

0 5 10Age out [Gyr]

02468

101214

Age

in [G

yr]

Turnoff

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

Frac

tiona

l age

unc

erta

inty

0 5 10Age out [Gyr]

02468

101214

Age

in [G

yr]

Turnoff

0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.0

Abso

lute

age

unc

erta

inty

[Gyr

]

Figure 1. Input age vs. output age, with bins coloured by fractional age uncertainty in the left column, and by absolute age uncertainty

in the right column. Giants (Teff < 5500 K, log g < 3.5), main sequence stars (log g > 4.25), and turn off stars (Teff > 5500 K,

3.5 < log g < 4.25) are shown as the top, middle, and bottom rows, respectively. Contours indicate 33, 67, 90, and 99 per cent of thesample.

plane. The top row shows the data for giant stars (Teff <5500 K, log g < 3.5), the middle row shows the data formain-sequence stars (log g > 4.25), and the bottom rowshows the data for turnoff stars (5500 K < Teff < 7100 K,3.5 < log g < 4.25). Panels in the left column are colour-coded by fractional age uncertainty, while panels on the rightare colour-coded by absolute age uncertainty. The contoursenclose 33, 67, 90, and 99 per cent of the sample. Unsur-prisingly, the giant and main-sequence samples have muchhigher uncertainties than the turnoff sample, with almostall stars being assigned an intermediate age regardless of itstrue age. Consequently, we exclude all but turnoff stars fromfurther consideration. For turnoff stars, the isochrones aremuch better separated than for the giant and lower main-

sequence stars, and therefore yield smaller age uncertainties(see Figure 3).

In order to obtain a balanced sample with the mostprecise age estimates possible, we restrict further analysisto turnoff stars in two age bins: young (0 < τ < 3 Gyr)and old (8 < τ < 13 Gyr) stars. We do not use stars ofintermediate-age (3 < τ < 8 Gyr) because this age groupmanifests a significant systematic offset. While this offsetdisappears if we only consider stars with age uncertaintiesless than 20%, we find that this prunes the sample in abiased way. Intermediate-age stars are more likely to havelarge age uncertainties because their errors are unrestricted:a young star cannot have an age smaller than zero, and anold star cannot have an age that exceeds 13.8 Gyr.

MNRAS 000, 1–14 (2018)

Kinematic trends in young and old stars 5

0 1 2 3 4Age in [Gyr]

0

10

20

30

Num

ber o

f sta

rs

0 < out 3

0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5Age in [Gyr]

0

20

40

60

Num

ber o

f sta

rs

8 out < 13

Figure 2. Distribution of input ages for the stars with output

ages given by the range indicated in the plot. The top panel shows

the distribution for our ‘young’ sample, while the bottom panelshows the distribution for our ‘old’ sample. The darker shaded

regions indicate stars with input ages that fall within the given

bin, while the lighter shaded regions indicate stars with inputages that fall slightly outside of the given bin. A lack of shading

indicates stars which are considered contaminants of that bin.

2.3.4 Contamination

We now estimate the number of stars that wrongly appearin the ‘young’ and ‘old’ bins as a consequence of observa-tional and theoretical uncertainties. In Figure 2, we showthe distributions of input ages of stars that end up in theyoung (0 < τ < 3 Gyr) and old (8 < τ < 13 Gyr) bins. Thedark-shaded areas are regions within which the star has beencorrectly classified as young or old. The lighter-shaded areasindicate regions in which the star is not as young or old asits bin membership implies, but is nonetheless pretty young(τ 6 4 Gyr) if it is in the young bin, or pretty old (τ > 6 Gyr)if it is in the old bin. From this analysis we conclude thatour ‘young’ sample has a success rate of ∼ 98 per cent inthe sense that less than ∼ 2 per cent of its stars are olderthan 4 Gyr, and our ‘old’ sample has a success rate of ∼ 73per cent in the sense that less than ∼ 27 per cent of its starsare younger than 6 Gyr.

2.4 Selection of our RAVE-TGAS sample

In light of the work presented in the last section, henceforthwe confine our analysis to the 37 765 RAVE turnoff stars(5500 < Teff < 7100 K, 3.5 < log g < 4.25). This selectionin Teff−log g space is shown in Figure 3 by the dashed redlines. Pixels in Figure 3 are colour-coded by fractional ageuncertainty, with solar-metallicity isochrones overplotted inblack, spanning a range in age from 1 to 13 Gyr in steps of1 Gyr.

A histogram of the age uncertainties for this sample isshown in Figure 4. The majority of our sample (∼ 60 per

4000500060007000Teff [K]

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

logg

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

Frac

tiona

l age

unc

erta

inty

Figure 3. Spectroscopic Teff−log g diagram of RAVE DR5 starswhich satisfy the quality criteria listed in Sec. 2.4.1. The dashed

red lines indicate the cuts made in the parameter space to select

for only turnoff stars. The bins are colour-coded by the fractionalage uncertainty. Solar-metallicity isochrones are overplotted in

black, and span a range in age from 1 to 13 Gyr, with a step size

of ∼1 Gyr.

cent) has age uncertainties less than 2 Gyr, with a sizablefraction (∼ 25 per cent) having age uncertainties less than1 Gyr.

2.4.1 RAVE quality criteria

We further restrict analysis to stars that have: a highsignal-to-noise ratio (SNR K); a reasonable estimate for theirline-of-sight velocity (eHRV); reliable atmospheric parame-ters because (i) the stellar-parameter pipeline converged(Algo Conv K, Kordopatis et al. 2013a), and (ii) the fit be-tween the best-fitting model and the observed spectrumfrom the chemical pipeline (CHISQ c, Boeche et al. 2011) wasreasonable. In addition, we remove peculiar stars flaggedby the classification pipeline as having anomalous spectra(Matijevic et al. 2012). Quantitatively, we require:

• SNR K > 40• eHRV < 8 km s−1

• Algo Conv K 6= 1• CHISQ c < 2000• c1 = d, g, h, n, or o• c2 = d, g, h, n, o, or e• c3 = d, g, h, n, o, or e

We then apply the age bins described in Sec. 2.3.3: young(0 < τ < 3 Gyr) and old (8 < τ < 13 Gyr), to this sampleof turnoff stars. After applying these criteria, we are leftwith 6630 ‘young’ stars and 5072 ‘old’ stars. The spatialdistributions of our selected young and old populations areshown in Figure 5, with blue and red contours, respectively.

MNRAS 000, 1–14 (2018)

6 J. Wojno et al.

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0Fractional age uncertainty

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Rela

tive

frequ

ency

0 1 2 3 4 5Absolute age uncertainty [Gyr]

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Rela

tive

frequ

ency

Figure 4. Cumulative histogram of the fractional (top) and ab-

solute (bottom) age uncertainties of our final selected sample of

turnoff stars (solid line), and for the whole RAVE-TGAS sample(dashed line).

7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5R [kpc]

1.000.750.500.250.000.250.500.751.00

Z [k

pc]

100

101

102

103

Num

ber o

f sta

rs p

er b

in

Figure 5. Spatial extent of the selected young (blue contours)

and old (red contours) turnoff stars. Contours indicate 33, 67,90, and 99 per cent of each sample. The spatial extent and den-

sity of the entire RAVE-TGAS sample (i.e., all spectral types)

is shown by the 2D histogram beneath. The white plus indicatesthe position of the Sun.

2.4.2 Metallicity bins

We divide each age group into the four metallicity bins il-lustrated in Figure 6. The bins are:

• Bins 1 and 5: 0.15 6 [Fe/H] < 0.45• Bins 2 and 6:−0.15 6 [Fe/H] < 0.15• Bins 3 and 7:−0.45 6 [Fe/H] < −0.15• Bins 4 and 8:−0.75 6 [Fe/H] < −0.45

Throughout the rest of the text, we will refer to these binsby the numbers listed above and shown in Figure 6. Wenote that the radial distribution of stars does not vary sig-nificantly between these metallicity bins, for both the young

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14Age [Gyr]

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0

0.5

[Fe/

H]

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Num

ber o

f sta

rs p

er b

in

Figure 6. Age vs. [Fe/H] 2D histogram for our sample of turnoff

stars defined by the red dashed lines in Figure 3, colour-coded

by density. We consider four metallicity bins for each age group,described in Section 2.4.2.

(Bins 1-4) and old (Bins 5-8) samples. Our young sample hasa Galactocentric radial distribution that peaks at R ∼ 8.2kpc, with σR ∼ 0.25 kpc, and for old stars, R ∼ 8.25 kpcand σR ∼ 0.12 kpc (see Figure 5).

3 VELOCITY DISTRIBUTIONS

We now examine for each of the eight age–metallicity binsmarked in Fig. 6 the distributions of VR, Vφ and Vz. We de-termine Galactocentric velocities in cylindrical coordinatesfollowing Appendix A of Williams et al. (2013) with the lo-cation of the Sun taken to be (R0, z0) = (8.3, 0) kpc, andthe local circular speed to be VLSR = 240 km s−1 (Schonrich2012), and the solar peculiar velocity to be (U, V,W )� =(11.10, 12.24, 7.25) km s−1 (Schonrich et al. 2010). VR is pos-itive for motion away from the Galactic centre, Vφ is pos-itive in the direction of Galactic rotation, and Vz is posi-tive towards the north Galactic pole. Line-of-sight veloci-ties are provided by RAVE DR5 (Kunder et al. 2017), andproper motions are taken from the TGAS catalogue (Linde-gren et al. 2016).

3.1 Correcting by the selection function of RAVE

As RAVE is not a volume-complete survey, when comput-ing kinematic trends we need to correct for the selectionfunction. Wojno et al. (2017) and references therein showthat the selection function of RAVE is relatively simple andwell-behaved in the sense that RAVE is not kinematicallyor chemically biased wherever its stellar parameter pipelinegives reliable results. However, our sample comprises exclu-sively stars contained in both RAVE and TGAS, which hadvastly different observing strategies and sky completeness,and therefore we had to reevaluate the selection functionSselect. We computed Sselect as a function of position on thesky in healpix (Gorski et al. 2005) pixels, I2MASS magni-tude, and (J −Ks) colour from the definition

Sselect(pixelα,δ) =

∑∑NRAVE(pixelα,δ, I, J−Ks)∑∑N2MASS(pixelα,δ, I, J−Ks)

. (1)

Each star contributes to the statistical analysis with a weightwi = 1/Sselect in the sense that the weighted mean x and

MNRAS 000, 1–14 (2018)

Kinematic trends in young and old stars 7

0.00

0.02

Norm

alize

d Hi

stog

ram

Bin 1

0.00

0.02

0.00

0.02

0.00

0.02 Bin 2

0.00

0.02

0.00

0.02

0.00

0.02 Bin 3

0.00

0.02

0.00

0.02

100 50 0 50 100VR [km s 1]

0.00

0.02 Bin 4

100 150 200 250 300V [km s 1]

0.00

0.02

100 50 0 50 100Vz [km s 1]

0.00

0.02

0.00

0.02 Bin 5

0.00

0.02

0.00

0.02

0.00

0.02 Bin 6

0.00

0.02

0.00

0.02

0.00

0.02 Bin 7

0.00

0.02

0.00

0.02

100 50 0 50 100VR [km s 1]

0.00

0.02 Bin 8

100 150 200 250 300V [km s 1]

0.00

0.02

100 50 0 50 100Vz [km s 1]

0.00

0.02

Figure 7. Cylindrical velocity distributions (left to right: VR, Vφ, Vz), weighted by the selection function, for our two age bins. Young

stars are plotted in blue, old stars are plotted in red. More metal-rich bins are plotted with darker colours, with more metal-poor bins inlighter colours (metallicity Bins 1, 2, 3, and 4 for young stars, and Bins 5, 6, 7, and 8 for old stars). Grey dashed lines indicate 0 km s−1

for the VR and Vz components, and 240 km s−1 for the Vφ component.

Table 1. Mean and dispersion for each component of the Galactocentric cylindrical velocity, weighted by the selection function, for both

age groups and each metallicity bin within the age groups.

Bin number Metallicity range N VR σR Vφ σφ Vz σz

Young1 0.15 6 [Fe/H] < 0.45 386 0.5 ± 1.3 30.3 ± 1.1 229.3 ± 1.0 23.6 ± 0.8 −2.4 ± 0.5 12.8 ± 0.5

2 −0.15 6 [Fe/H] < 0.15 2534 2.1 ± 0.4 27.2 ± 0.4 234.0 ± 0.3 18.4 ± 0.3 −0.2 ± 0.2 12.9 ± 0.23 −0.45 6 [Fe/H] < −0.15 3141 −1.8 ± 0.4 30.1 ± 0.4 237.7 ± 0.3 18.6 ± 0.2 −0.3 ± 0.2 13.2 ± 0.2

4 −0.75 6 [Fe/H] < −0.45 542 −5.6 ± 1.0 29.2 ± 0.9 243.2 ± 0.6 18.0 ± 0.5 0.1 ± 0.5 12.6 ± 0.4

Old5 0.15 6 [Fe/H] < 0.45 531 0.4 ± 1.4 39.3 ± 0.6 222.1 ± 0.9 24.4 ± 0.9 0.1 ± 0.7 19.0 ± 1.26 −0.15 6 [Fe/H] < 0.15 1757 −2.2 ± 0.8 40.5 ± 1.0 225.6 ± 0.5 25.8 ± 1.6 0.5 ± 0.4 21.2 ± 2.07 −0.45 6 [Fe/H] < −0.15 1740 −2.6 ± 0.8 43.2 ± 1.0 228.7 ± 0.6 28.9 ± 1.4 −2.2 ± 0.5 24.3 ± 1.7

8 −0.75 6 [Fe/H] < −0.45 838 −2.5 ± 1.3 47.2 ± 0.6 227.5 ± 0.9 32.9 ± 0.9 −1.6 ± 0.8 27.3 ± 1.0

weighted dispersion σx of an observable x are

x =

n∑i=1

(xi × wi)n∑i=1

wi

(2)

σ2x =

n∑i=1

wi(xi − x)2

kn∑i=1

wi

, (3)

where k = (N ′ − 1)/N ′, and N ′ is the number of non-zeroweights.

3.2 Velocity trends with age and [Fe/H]

Figure 7 shows (left to right) the weighted distributions ofVR, Vφ and Vz for stars in the young bin (blue, top row), and

MNRAS 000, 1–14 (2018)

8 J. Wojno et al.

the old bin (red, bottom row), with each age bin dividedinto the four metallicity bins defined in Fig. 6. Statistics foreach histogram, computed according to equations (2) and(3), are given in Table 1. We note that the values of σR,φ,zgiven in Table 1 have been corrected for the contribution ofobservational uncertainties:

σR,φ,z =√σ2R,φ,z − e2

VR,φ,z(4)

where eVR,φ,z is the reported uncertainty for each componentof the velocity, weighted by the selection function.

The values in Table 1 for young stars (upper block) showthat VR and Vz do not vary significantly with metallicity. Bycontrast Vφ increases as [Fe/H] decreases. An inverse correla-tion of Vφ with [Fe/H] within the thin disc is well known (e.g.Lee et al. 2011; Adibekyan et al. 2013; Recio-Blanco et al.2014; Wojno et al. 2016; Kordopatis et al. 2017), and recog-nised to be a signature of the metallicity gradient within thethin disc (e.g. Schonrich et al. 2010): metal-poor stars tendto have large guiding-centre radii and to visit us near peri-centre, whereas metal-rich stars tend to have small guiding-centre radii and visit us near apocentre. Quantitatively, wefind

∂Vφ∂[Fe/H]

≈ −15 km s−1 dex−1 (young stars). (5)

We estimate this value by a simple linear fit to the valuesof Vφ for the four metallicity bins, taking the center of themetallicity bin for the value on the x-axis. Previous esti-mates of ∂Vφ/∂[Fe/H] have ranged from −23 km s−1dex−1

to −11 km s−1dex−1. While our estimate is comparable, lit-erature values usually indicate a steeper gradient than wefind.

Table 1 indicates that σφ decreases as metallicity de-creases, with Bin 1 having a dispersion σφ = 23.6 ±0.8 km s−1 and Bin 4 having σφ = 18.0 ± 0.5 km s−1. Thistrend is a natural corollary of an increase in mean Galac-tocentric radius with decreasing metallicity and the stellardisc becoming cooler as one moves outward. The data for σRsuggest, however, that we treat the trend in σφ with cautionbecause they do not show a corresponding decrease whiledynamical theory requires σR and σφ to vary together.

In line with much previous work (e.g., Nordstrom et al.2004; Guiglion et al. 2015) the histograms for old stars arebroader than those for young stars. All three velocity disper-sions increase with decreasing [Fe/H], so amongst old starsthe metal-poor component is the hottest – this is the reverseof the trend in σφ that we just saw in the young stars. Grat-ifyingly, the data for Vφ for old stars show it to decreaseas [Fe/H] increases, just as dynamical theory requires giventhe increase in σφ. Many previous studies (e.g. Spagna et al.2010; Kordopatis et al. 2011; Adibekyan et al. 2013; Kor-dopatis et al. 2013b; Wojno et al. 2016; Kordopatis et al.2017) have found the same trend of Vφ with [Fe/H] but theyhave generally obtained a steeper gradient than our value

∂Vφ∂[Fe/H]

≈ 5 km s−1 dex−1 (old stars). (6)

Measurements from the literature range from42 km s−1 dex−1 to 51 km s−1 dex−1. The literaturevalues are much larger than ours, probably because theyrefer to samples of thick disc stars (selected chemically,kinematically, or spatially), whereas we have imposed nosuch selection.

Figure 8 shows the distribution of young (blue) andold (red) stars in the (−VR, Vφ) plane, which is the naturalextension of the traditional (U, V ) plane. The histograms inthe left and central columns of Fig. 7 are projections of thesedistributions onto the VR and Vφ axes. In Fig. 8 metallicityincreases from left to right. Literature values for local max-ima associated with the Hercules (cyan cross), Hyades (ma-genta square), and Pleiades (green triangle) moving groupsare overplotted (Dehnen 2000; Binney & Tremaine 2008).

The peak in the distribution of young stars movesup and to the right with decreasing metallicity, as weexpect given that for these stars ∂Vφ/∂[Fe/H] < 0 and∂VR/∂[Fe/H] > 0. With the possible exception of the Her-cules stream (cyan cross) the contours do not provide con-vincing evidence for the streams detected by Dehnen (2000)in Hipparcos data. Curiously, the signature of the Hyadesstream is most convincing for the most metal-poor Bins 4and 8. Given the small size of the sample of old stars, and theway the red contours change from one metallicity panel toanother, we conclude that these wiggles probably owe moreto noise than moving groups.

The histograms for Vz in the right column of Fig. 7 showthat, as expected, the old stars are vertically hotter than theyoung stars. Whereas for the old stars σz tends to increasewith decreasing metallicity, from σz = 19.0± 1.2 km s−1 forBin 5 to σz = 27.3 ± 1.0 km s−1 for Bin 8, σz is essentiallyindependent of metallicity for the young stars. The increasefor old stars in σz with decreasing [Fe/H], like the decreasein Vφ with decreasing [Fe/H], points to old, metal-poor starsbeing on highly eccentric orbits that are not tightly confinedto the plane.

3.3 Velocity trends with R

We now consider kinematic trends with Galactocentric ra-dius. In Figures 9 and 10, we show VR, Vφ, Vz as functions ofR for the young and old stars, respectively. Metal-rich binsare shown in darker colours with thicker lines, with succes-sively lighter colours and thinner lines indicating decreas-ing metallicity. The plotted values are calculated as follows.The stars in a given age-metallicity bin were ordered by Rand then a window containing N stars was moved along theresulting lineup, and the mean of VR, etc., was computedat each location of the window. This operation was carriedout for 1000 values of N that were drawn from a uniformdistribution with a minimum of 20, and a maximum whichvaried as a function of the size of the age-metallicity bin.The results were then averaged. Average uncertainties foreach velocity component are given in their respective pan-els. The uncertainty in R largely correlates with the range inGalactocentric radius sampled, and is of the order of ∼ 0.03and ∼ 0.01 kpc for young and old stars, respectively.

To check that this procedure generates velocity gradi-ents that are consistent with published gradients, we usedit to compute velocity gradients for (i) the complete set ofturnoff stars, i.e. all stars in the red dashed rectangle ofFigure 3, regardless of age or metallicity, and (ii) the setof red giant stars (2 < log g < 2.5) that satisfy the qual-ity criteria given in Section 2.4.1. For the turnoff stars wefind ∂VR/∂R = −5.7±2.0 km s−1 kpc−1, while for the giantstars ∂VR/∂R = −5.4±2.1 km s−1 kpc−1. Both of these val-ues agree well with literature values: −3 km s−1 kpc−1 from

MNRAS 000, 1–14 (2018)

Kinematic trends in young and old stars 9

100 0 100VR [km s 1]

100

150

200

250

300

V[k

ms

1 ]

100 0 100VR [km s 1]

100

150

200

250

300

V[k

ms

1 ]100 0 100

VR [km s 1]

100

150

200

250

300

V[k

ms

1 ]

100 0 100VR [km s 1]

100

150

200

250

300

V[k

ms

1 ]

Figure 8. −VR;Vφ space for our sample of young (blue, solid) stars and old (red, dashed) stars, split into the four metallicity bins shown

in Figure 6. Contours show the density distributions for 33, 67, 90, and 99 per cent of the sample for each bin. The most metal-rich bin

(0.15 6 [Fe/H] < 0.45) is on the left, and the most metal-poor bin (−0.75 6 [Fe/H] < −0.45) is on the right. Cyan crosses indicate thetwo peaks in the kinematics of the Hercules moving group. The Hyades and Pleiades moving groups are indicated with a magenta square

and a green triangle, respectively.

7.8 8.0 8.2 8.4 8.6R [kpc]

15

10

5

0

5

10

15

V R[k

ms

1 ]

7.8 8.0 8.2 8.4 8.6R [kpc]

210

220

230

240

250

V[k

ms

1 ]

7.8 8.0 8.2 8.4 8.6R [kpc]

15

10

5

0

5

10

15

V z[k

ms

1 ]

Figure 9. Velocity trends as a function of Galactocentric radius (left to right: VR, Vφ, Vz), weighted by the selection function, for ouryoung stars. The trend for the entire young sample (−0.75 6 [Fe/H] < 0.45) is indicated with the black dotted line. The most metal-rich

bin (0.15 6 [Fe/H] < 0.45) is indicated with the thick, dark blue line, and the most metal-poor bin (−0.75 6 [Fe/H] < −0.45) with the

thin, light blue line. The solid grey line indicates the position of the Sun. Average uncertainties are indicated in each panel by the errorbar.

7.8 8.0 8.2 8.4 8.6R [kpc]

15

10

5

0

5

10

15

V R[k

ms

1 ]

7.8 8.0 8.2 8.4 8.6R [kpc]

210

220

230

240

250

V[k

ms

1 ]

7.8 8.0 8.2 8.4 8.6R [kpc]

15

10

5

0

5

10

15

V z[k

ms

1 ]

Figure 10. Velocity trends as a function of Galactocentric radius (left to right: VR, Vφ, Vz), weighted by the selection function, for our

old stars. The trend for the entire old sample (−0.75 6 [Fe/H] < 0.45) is indicated with the black dotted line. The most metal-rich bin(0.15 6 [Fe/H] < 0.45) is indicated with the thick, dark red line, and the most metal- poor bin (−0.75 6 [Fe/H] < −0.45) with the thin,light pink line. The solid grey line indicates the position of the Sun. Average uncertainties are indicated in each panel by the error bar.

MNRAS 000, 1–14 (2018)

10 J. Wojno et al.

Table 2. Measured radial velocity gradients for each age group

and metallicity bin.

Bin Number Metallicity range ∂VR/∂R

km s−1 kpc−1

Young

1 0.15 6 [Fe/H] < 0.45 −28.0 ± 9.9

2 −0.15 6 [Fe/H] < 0.15 −10.6 ± 3.83 −0.45 6 [Fe/H] < −0.15 −10.2 ± 3.6

4 −0.75 6 [Fe/H] < −0.45 −3.6 ± 1.3

all −0.75 6 [Fe/H] < 0.45 −11.4 ± 4.0

Old5 0.15 6 [Fe/H] < 0.45 −5.9 ± 2.5

6 −0.15 6 [Fe/H] < 0.15 −0.7 ± 1.1

7 −0.45 6 [Fe/H] < −0.15 −9.9 ± 4.28 −0.75 6 [Fe/H] < −0.45 −6.8 ± 2.8

all −0.75 6 [Fe/H] < 0.45 −5.9 ± 2.6

Siebert et al. (2011), −8 km s−1 kpc−1 from Williams et al.(2013), and −6.6±0.7 km s−1 kpc−1 from Bovy (2017). Neg-ative values of ∂VR/∂R signal that we lie in a region in whichthe stellar fluid is being compressed as stars at both smallerand larger radii are moving towards us.

3.3.1 Young stars ( 0 < τ < 3 Gyr)

The dashed black lines in Figure 9 show the velocity trendsfor our entire sample of young stars, summed over all fourmetallicity bins. The gradient of the curve in the panel forVR is ∂VR/∂R = −11.4 ± 4.0 km s−1 kpc. When the sam-ple is decomposed by metallicity, the gradient ∂VR/∂R ofthe most metal-rich bin (1) is markedly steeper (−28.0 ±9.9 km s−1 kpc−1) than those of Bins 2 and 3. The curveVR(R) for the most metal-poor bin (4) shifts from a neg-ative gradient at smaller radii to a positive gradient atthe largest values of R. The gradients we obtain for Bins1, 2, and 3 are all steeper than typical literature val-ues for more inhomogeneous populations (. −3 km s−1 kpcfrom Siebert et al. (2011); −8 km s−1 kpc−1 from Williamset al. (2013); −6.6 ± 0.7 km s−1 kpc−1 from Bovy (2017);−7.01± 0.61 km s−1 kpc−1, and −9.42± 1.77 km s−1 kpc−1

from Carrillo et al. (2018) for measurements made belowand above the plane of the disc, respectively).

The central panel of Fig. 9 displays again the familiarresult that at any radius Vφ decreases with increasing [Fe/H](upper central panel of Fig. 7). The new result we take fromFig. 9 is that the sign of ∂Vφ/∂R changes from positivefor the metal-rich Bin 1 to negative for the metal-poor Bin4. This trend among our young stars is consistent with afinding of Rojas-Arriagada et al. (2016, their Figure 8) forthe thin disc as a whole.

The right panel of Fig. 9 shows that Vz is consistentwith zero at all radii for all metallicity bins.

3.3.2 Old stars ( 8 < τ < 13 Gyr)

Figure 10 shows the dependence of V on R for old stars.Unfortunately, the old stars probe a significantly smallerrange in R than do the young stars.

When all four metallicity bins are aggregated, we obtaina negative gradient, ∂VR/∂R = −5.9 ± 2.6 km s−1 kpc−1.

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6Eccentricity

0

2

4

6

8

Norm

alize

d hi

stog

ram

Bin 1: e = 0.14, e = 0.09Bin 2: e = 0.12, e = 0.06Bin 3: e = 0.12, e = 0.07Bin 4: e = 0.11, e = 0.06

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6Eccentricity

0

2

4

6

8

Norm

alize

d hi

stog

ram

Bin 5: e = 0.18, e = 0.09Bin 6: e = 0.17, e = 0.1Bin 7: e = 0.17, e = 0.1Bin 8: e = 0.19, e = 0.11

Figure 11. Orbital eccentricities for our sample of young (top)

and old (bottom) stars. Bins in metallicity are defined in Sec-

tion 2.4.2.

There is a suggestion that the mean value of VR decreaseswith decreasing metallicity, but there is no evident variationof ∂VR/∂R with metallicity, contrary to what we found forthe young stars.

All four metallicity bins of old stars have lagging valuesof Vφ ∼ −14 km s−1, as we expect given the relatively largevelocity dispersions of these populations. Any dependenceon metallicity of the gradient ∂Vφ/∂R is, for the most part,lost in the noise, contrary to what we found for the youngstars. However, we do find that the most metal-rich bin (5)has the greatest lag, similar to Bin 1 for young stars.

The old stars, like the young stars, show no systematicdependence of Vz on either metallicity or radius, and for allpopulations Vz is consistent with zero.

4 ORBITAL PARAMETERS

An orbit in the MWPotential2014 potential was computedfor each star using the galpy (Bovy 2015) python package.From the orbit we tabulated the eccentricity e, guiding ra-dius (RG), and the maximum height above the plane zmax.

4.0.1 Eccentricities

In Figure 11, we show the eccentricity distributions for ouryoung (left panel) and old stars (right panel), divided intobins of metallicity and weighted by the factors wi defined inSection 3.1. When all four metallicity bins are aggregated,the eccentricity distribution of our young stars peaks at e =0.12 and has dispersion σe = 0.07 (typical of the thin disc).The mean value of e shifts to smaller values with decreasingmetallicity (e = 0.14 for Bin 1 and e = 0.11 for Bin 4),and the dispersion of e decreases slightly with decreasingmetallicity.

MNRAS 000, 1–14 (2018)

Kinematic trends in young and old stars 11

4 6 8 10Guiding Radius (RG) [kpc]

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Norm

alize

d hi

stog

ram Bin 1: RG = 7.8, RG = 0.9

Bin 2: RG = 8.0, RG = 0.6Bin 3: RG = 8.1, RG = 0.6Bin 4: RG = 8.3, RG = 0.6

4 6 8 10Guiding Radius (RG) [kpc]

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Norm

alize

d hi

stog

ram Bin 5: RG = 7.6, RG = 0.9

Bin 6: RG = 7.8, RG = 0.9Bin 7: RG = 7.9, RG = 1.0Bin 8: RG = 7.8, RG = 1.1

Figure 12. Maximum height above the plane (Zmax) for our

sample of young (top) and old (bottom) stars. Bins in metallicity

are defined in Section 2.4.2.

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0zmax [kpc]

0

1

2

3

4

Norm

alize

d hi

stog

ram Bin 1: zmax = 0.31, zmax = 0.14

Bin 2: zmax = 0.32, zmax = 0.16Bin 3: zmax = 0.33, zmax = 0.17Bin 4: zmax = 0.34, zmax = 0.15

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0zmax [kpc]

0

1

2

3

4

Norm

alize

d hi

stog

ram Bin 5: zmax = 0.33, zmax = 0.19

Bin 6: zmax = 0.36, zmax = 0.25Bin 7: zmax = 0.42, zmax = 0.33Bin 8: zmax = 0.47, zmax = 0.38

Figure 13. Maximum height above the plane (Zmax) for oursample of young (top) and old (bottom) stars. Bins in metallicityare defined in Section 2.4.2.

The old stars have a much broader distribution in e, andconsequently a larger mean eccentricity. When the metallic-ity bins are aggregated, the mean eccentricity of old starsis e = 0.18 and its dispersion is σe = 0.1 (typical of thethick disc, see Kordopatis et al. 2011). In contrast to theyoung population, the mean and dispersion of the eccentric-ity distributions are very similar, and slightly increase withdecreasing metallicity: the mean e increases from e = 0.18

for Bin 5 to e = 0.19 for Bin 8. We note that for the mostmetal-rich bin (0.15 6 [Fe/H] < 0.45), the histogram is sug-gestive of a bimodality in the eccentricity distribution. Un-certainties in e and σe are of the order ∼ 0.01.

4.0.2 Guiding radii

The distributions of guiding radii for our young and oldsamples are shown in Figure 12. Young stars have meanguiding radii closer to the solar neighbourhood (RG = 7.8−8.3 kpc) compared to old stars, which have guiding radiitowards the inner disc (RG = 7.6− 7.9 kpc). The dispersionin guiding radii is also larger for old stars. We also note ahint of a bimodality in the guiding radii distribution for old,metal-rich stars, similar to their eccentricity distribution. Inaddition, for young stars, we find an increase in guiding radiias a function of decreasing metallicity, corresponding to theresults shown in Figure 11. Uncertainties in RG and σRGare of the order ∼ 0.03 kpc.

4.0.3 Maximum height above the plane

In Figure 13, we show the distributions of zmax for our youngand old stars. All metallicity bins of young stars have similarmeans (zmax = 0.31− 0.34 kpc). For young stars, uncertain-ties on zmax and σzmax are of the order ∼ 0.01 kpc. By con-trast the old stars show a signficant difference in mean Zmax

between the most metal-rich (Bin 5, zmax = 0.3 kpc), andthe most metal-poor bin (zmax = 0.52 kpc). Uncertainties onzmax and σzmax for old stars are of the order ∼ 0.02 kpc.

The distributions of zmax for young and old stars areremarkably similar. Both are very skew, but the distributionfor old stars has a much stronger tail towards high zmax. Ininterpreting these distributions of zmax it must be borne inmind that RAVE’s sightlines avoid the plane, so stars tendto be observed at significant values of z. Clearly zmax >z. Given the strong correlation of σz with age establishedin earlier work (e.g. Casagrande et al. 2011), most of theyoungest stars in the disc have no chance of entering theRAVE catalogue because they do not move far enough fromthe plane. That is, RAVE must be catching only the high-Vztail of the youngest stars.

5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

The release of Gaia-based parallaxes for the majority ofRAVE stars has significantly enhanced the value of theRAVE catalogue by reducing errors in distances and propermotions, particularly for main-sequence and turnoff stars.The new parallaxes also make it possible to determine cred-ible ages for stars in the turnoff region. It is well establishedthat the kinematics of a stellar population is correlated withage and chemistry. Since these correlations arise from thesecular evolution of the Galaxy’s mass distribution, star-formation rate and non-axisymmetric features (e.g. Aumeret al. 2016; Schonrich & McMillan 2017), they must encodevaluable information about our Galaxy’s history. Hence itis interesting to re-examine the kinematics-age-metallicitynexus for turnoff stars that appear in both the RAVE andTGAS catalogs.

MNRAS 000, 1–14 (2018)

12 J. Wojno et al.

Unfortunately, even for stars in the RAVE-TGAS over-lap, ages are quite uncertain, so we have restricted the anal-ysis to the youngest (τ < 3 Gyr) and oldest (τ > 8 Gyr)stars in the expectation that the given uncertainties cannotscatter stars from one extreme group to the other. A corol-lary of this restriction is that the studied samples are rathersmall: 6630 young stars and 5072 old stars. We note thatwhile we expect our young stars to be relatively free of con-tamination, the same cannot be said for the old stars, wherewe estimate ∼ 27 per cent have true ages less than 6 Gyr.

A feature of samples drawn from RAVE that one mustalways bear in mind is that few RAVE stars lie close tothe plane, and distance from the Sun and distance from theplane are correlated. These features arise because RAVEavoids sight lines at low Galactic latitudes. A significantcorollary for our sample of young stars is that they mustall be outliers in the true distribution of vertical energy andthey may not be typical of young stars as a whole.

While the young stars cover a range ∼ 0.5 kpc in R, thesample of old, less luminous stars, has not much more thanhalf the radial range. Consequently, it is hard to establishradial trends for the old stars.

We have used hot turnoff stars to conduct our analy-sis, and here we note a small caveat regarding RAVE turnoffstars and their derived distances. Kunder et al. (2017) foundthat distances to RAVE’s hot dwarfs in DR5 were some ofthe most problematic, and an erroneous distance can resultin motion associated with differential rotation artificially en-hancing values derived for VR (Schonrich et al. 2012). How-ever, McMillan et al. (2017), using TGAS parallaxes as aprior to provide updated distance measurements, found thatsystematic uncertainties were greatly reduced for turnoffstars (see their Section 7). Therefore, while we cannot becompletely sure that these results are not artifacts inducedby systematic errors in the distances to these hot turnoffstars, we have little reason to believe that our results aresimply due to systematics.

Overall, we find negative radial velocity gradients as afunction of Galactocentric radii, and measure steeper gradi-ents than those found before for RAVE stars (Siebert et al.2011; Williams et al. 2013). The source of the negative gra-dient in ∂VR/∂R is typically attributed to flows induced bynon-axisymmetries in the disc (i.e., the bar and/or spiralarms, Siebert et al. 2011, 2012). When we split each agegroup into bins of metallicity, we show, for the first time,that ∂VR/∂R steepens with metallicity. While a signatureof this trend is found in both the young and old stars, it ismuch more pronounced for young stars.

A possible physical interpretation for this differencemay be found by revisiting the −VR;Vφ plane (Figure 8,analogous to the U ;V plane). We recall that moving groupsin the local velocity field have been associated with theeffects of resonant gravitational interactions due to non-axisymmetries in the MW disc, e.g. the Hercules movinggroup is typically explained as a signature of a bar that per-turbs the orbits of stars near its OLR (e.g. Dehnen 2000;Fux 2001), and the Hyades moving group is typically as-sociated with spiral structure (Quillen & Minchev 2005).Figure 8 shows that for our sample, stars with similar kine-matics to those of the Hyades and Hercules moving groupsare seen in all metallicity bins and ages. However, we findthat the central peak of the distribution for young stars

shifts towards larger values of −VR;Vφ as metallicity de-creases. This shift in the peak of the kinematics of youngstars may indicate that the relative contribution of each non-axisymmetric component of the disc (the spiral arms andbar, respectively) to the perturbed stellar kinematics variesas a function of metallicity. We note that this correlationalso corresponds, as expected, to the observed metallicitygradient in the Galaxy (of the order ∂[Fe/H]/∂R ∼ −0.06dex kpc−1, Boeche et al. 2013; Genovali et al. 2014).

The presence of young, metal-rich stars with similarkinematics as the Hyades moving group is consistent withthe results of Quillen & Minchev (2005); Famaey et al.(2008); Antoja et al. (2017), who found the moving groupto be metal-rich and produced through gravitational interac-tions with spiral arms. In addition, the fact that we see thesemetal-rich stars visiting the solar neighborhood from the in-ner disc, with similar kinematics as the Hercules movinggroup, suggests that these stars may have had their orbitsaffected by similar dynamical interactions with the centralbar (Ramya et al. 2016; Antoja et al. 2017). Taking thesepoints into account, we suggest that dynamical effects dueto both the bar and spiral arms contribute to the steeperradial velocity gradient we find for young, metal-rich stars,while the more metal-poor stars are less affected by the bar.Our findings are then roughly consistent with Monari et al.(2017, see their Figure 4), where moving further from theOLR decreases the contribution of the bar, similar to whatwe find for our more metal-poor stars.

We also find secure results regarding the variation of Vφwith age, metallicity and Galactocentric radius. All the oldpopulations show a significant lag of Vφ relative to the cir-cular speed, with little dependence on metallicity. Amongthe young stars, it is the most metal-rich that show thegreatest lag in Vφ, which is a manifestation of the metallic-ity gradient in the thin disc and epicyclic motions of stars.The most metal-rich subsample of young stars shows rathersurprising trends with R in both VR and Vφ: its value for∂VR/∂R is much more negative than the values we obtainfor the less metal-rich parts of the young sample, and itsvalue for ∂Vφ/∂R is strongly positive while the more metal-weak young stars show weakly negative values.

We find that the super-solar metallicity young starshave, on average, lower eccentricities than the super-solarmetallicity old stars, pointing towards the possibility thatthe latter have migrated from much further in the Galac-tic disc. This result adds another dimension (age) to thefindings of Kordopatis et al. (2015), where they show thatsuper metal-rich (SMR) stars in the solar neighborhood areon relatively circular orbits. They conclude that these SMRstars must be predominantly affected by resonant scatter-ing at the OLR of the spiral arms (churning, Sellwood &Binney 2002), as their orbital angular momentum has in-creased to bring them to the solar neighbourhood, withouta corresponding increase in eccentricity. We also note the bi-modality in the eccentricity and guiding radii distributionsfor old, metal-rich stars, and suggest that this may be a pos-sible signature of the different processes which bring them tothe solar radius– either through epicyclic motions (i.e., starswith larger guiding radii which are temporarily visiting thesolar neighbourhood), or churning (true migrators from theinner Galaxy).

MNRAS 000, 1–14 (2018)

Kinematic trends in young and old stars 13

With Gaia DR22 and additional individual chemicalabundances (Wyse et al., in prep), precise age estimates ofthese stars should allow for observational constraints on therelative efficiency of processes which bring them to the solarneighbourhood.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank the anonymous referee for their suggestions thatgreatly improved the quality of the manuscript. We alsothank Alice Quillen, Friedrich Anders, and Kyle Oman fortheir comments and enlightening discussions. Funding forthis work and for RAVE has been provided by: the Aus-tralian Astronomical Observatory; the Leibniz-Institut furAstrophysik Potsdam (AIP); the Australian National Uni-versity; the Australian Research Council; the European Re-search Council under the European Union’s Seventh Frame-work Programme (Grant Agreement 240271 and 321067);the French National Research Agency; the German Re-search Foundation (SPP 1177 and SFB 881); the IstitutoNazionale di Astrofisica at Padova; The Johns Hopkins Uni-versity; the National Science Foundation of the USA (AST-0908326); the W. M. Keck foundation; the Macquarie Uni-versity; the Netherlands Research School for Astronomy;the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council ofCanada; the Slovenian Research Agency; the Swiss Na-tional Science Foundation; the Science & Technology Facil-ities Council of the UK; Opticon; Strasbourg Observatory;and the Universities of Groningen, Heidelberg and Sydney.The RAVE web site is at https://www.rave-survey.org. Thiswork has made use of data from the European Space Agency(ESA) mission Gaia (https://www.cosmos.esa.int/gaia),processed by the Gaia Data Processing and Analysis Con-sortium (DPAC, https://www.cosmos.esa.int/web/gaia/dpac/consortium). Funding for the DPAC has been pro-vided by national institutions, in particular the institutionsparticipating in the Gaia Multilateral Agreement.

REFERENCES

Adibekyan V. Z., et al., 2013, A&A, 554, A44

Antoja T., Figueras F., Torra J., Valenzuela O., Pichardo B.,

2010, Lecture Notes and Essays in Astrophysics, 4, 13

Antoja T., Figueras F., Romero-Gomez M., Pichardo B., Valen-zuela O., Moreno E., 2011, MNRAS, 418, 1423

Antoja T., et al., 2015, ApJ, 800, L32

Antoja T., et al., 2017, A&A, 601, A59

Aumer M., Binney J., Schonrich R., 2016, MNRAS, 462, 1697

Bailer-Jones C. A. L., et al., 2013, A&A, 559, A74

Binney J., Tremaine S., 2008, Galactic Dynamics: Second Edition.Princeton University Press

Binney J., et al., 2014, MNRAS, 437, 351

Boeche C., et al., 2011, AJ, 142, 193

Boeche C., et al., 2013, A&A, 559, A59

Bovy J., 2015, ApJS, 216, 29

Bovy J., 2017, MNRAS, 468, L63

Bressan A., Marigo P., Girardi L., Salasnich B., Dal Cero C.,Rubele S., Nanni A., 2012, MNRAS, 427, 127

Carlin J. L., et al., 2013, ApJ, 777, L5

2 https://www.cosmos.esa.int/web/gaia/dr2

Carrillo I., et al., 2018, MNRAS, 475, 2679

Casagrande L., Schonrich R., Asplund M., Cassisi S., Ramırez I.,

Melendez J., Bensby T., Feltzing S., 2011, A&A, 530, A138

Cutri R. M., et al., 2013, VizieR Online Data Catalog, 2328

De Silva G. M., et al., 2015, MNRAS, 449, 2604

Dehnen W., 2000, AJ, 119, 800

Famaey B., Pont F., Luri X., Udry S., Mayor M., Jorissen A.,

2007, A&A, 461, 957

Famaey B., Siebert A., Jorissen A., 2008, A&A, 483, 453

Faure C., Siebert A., Famaey B., 2014, MNRAS, 440, 2564

Freeman K., Bland-Hawthorn J., 2002, ARA&A, 40, 487

Fux R., 2001, A&A, 373, 511

Gaia Collaboration et al., 2016, A&A, 595, A1

Genovali K., et al., 2014, A&A, 566, A37

Gilmore G., et al., 2012, The Messenger, 147, 25

Gomez F. A., Minchev I., O’Shea B. W., Beers T. C., Bullock

J. S., Purcell C. W., 2013, MNRAS, 429, 159

Gorski K. M., Hivon E., Banday A. J., Wandelt B. D., HansenF. K., Reinecke M., Bartelmann M., 2005, ApJ, 622, 759

Grand R. J. J., Kawata D., Cropper M., 2012, MNRAS, 421, 1529

Guiglion G., et al., 2015, A&A, 583, A91

Holmberg J., Nordstrom B., Andersen J., 2007, A&A, 475, 519

Kapteyn J. C., 1905, Reports of the British Association for theAdvancement of Science, 264, 257

Kordopatis G., et al., 2011, A&A, 535, A107

Kordopatis G., et al., 2013a, AJ, 146, 134

Kordopatis G., et al., 2013b, MNRAS, 436, 3231

Kordopatis G., et al., 2015, MNRAS, 447, 3526

Kordopatis G., Wyse R. F. G., Chiappini C., Minchev I., Anders

F., Santiago B., 2017, MNRAS, 467, 469

Kunder A., et al., 2017, AJ, 153, 75

Kushniruk I., Schirmer T., Bensby T., 2017, preprint,

(arXiv:1709.06905)

Lee Y. S., et al., 2011, ApJ, 738, 187

Lindegren L., et al., 2016, A&A, 595, A4

Majewski S. R., et al., 2017, AJ, 154, 94

Matijevic G., et al., 2012, ApJS, 200, 14

McMillan P. J., 2013, MNRAS, 430, 3276

McMillan P. J., et al., 2017, preprint, (arXiv:1707.04554)

Minchev I., Boily C., Siebert A., Bienayme O., 2010, MNRAS,

407, 2122

Monari G., Helmi A., Antoja T., Steinmetz M., 2014, A&A, 569,

A69

Monari G., Famaey B., Siebert A., 2016, MNRAS, 457, 2569

Monari G., Famaey B., Fouvry J.-B., Binney J., 2017, MNRAS,

471, 4314

Nordstrom B., et al., 2004, A&A, 418, 989

Proctor R. A., 1869, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London

Series I, 18, 169

Prusti T., 2012, Astronomische Nachrichten, 333, 453

Purcell C. W., Bullock J. S., Tollerud E. J., Rocha M.,Chakrabarti S., 2011, Nature, 477, 301

Quillen A. C., Minchev I., 2005, AJ, 130, 576

Quillen A. C., Dougherty J., Bagley M. B., Minchev I., Com-paretta J., 2011, MNRAS, 417, 762

Ramya P., Reddy B. E., Lambert D. L., Musthafa M. M., 2016,MNRAS, 460, 1356

Recio-Blanco A., et al., 2014, A&A, 567, A5

Recio-Blanco A., et al., 2016, A&A, 585, A93

Rojas-Arriagada A., et al., 2016, A&A, 586, A39

Schonrich R., 2012, MNRAS, 427, 274

Schonrich R., McMillan P. J., 2017, MNRAS, 467, 1154

Schonrich R., Binney J., Dehnen W., 2010, MNRAS, 403, 1829

Schonrich R., Binney J., Asplund M., 2012, MNRAS, 420, 1281

Sellwood J. A., Binney J. J., 2002, MNRAS, 336, 785

Sharma S., Bland-Hawthorn J., Johnston K. V., Binney J., 2011,

ApJ, 730, 3

Siebert A., et al., 2011, MNRAS, 412, 2026

MNRAS 000, 1–14 (2018)

14 J. Wojno et al.

Siebert A., et al., 2012, MNRAS, 425, 2335

Skrutskie M. F., et al., 2006, AJ, 131, 1163

Spagna A., Lattanzi M. G., Re Fiorentin P., Smart R. L., 2010,A&A, 510, L4

Steinmetz M., et al., 2006, AJ, 132, 1645

Widrow L. M., Gardner S., Yanny B., Dodelson S., Chen H.-Y.,2012, ApJ, 750, L41

Williams M. E. K., et al., 2013, MNRAS, 436, 101Wojno J., et al., 2016, MNRAS, 461, 4246

Wojno J., et al., 2017, MNRAS, 468, 3368

Yanny B., et al., 2009, AJ, 137, 4377Zhao G., Zhao Y.-H., Chu Y.-Q., Jing Y.-P., Deng L.-C., 2012,

Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 12, 723

This paper has been typeset from a TEX/LATEX file prepared by

the author.

MNRAS 000, 1–14 (2018)